Posted by samfriedman 3 days ago
I want my country, freedom, and civil rights back.
Probable cause is out the window. This is, firsthand, Steven Millers White America policy starting to take effect.
The only thing I can't decide on is if YC let this rot take hold because they were also fellow travelers, or if they made the wrong choice that a good number of failed internet social spaces make in following their own stated guidelines to the exact letter at the expense of all common sense and decency.
Not that it matters much in the end - the end result is what we got.
The latter were probably just bots/scripts but I’ve often thought it hilarious to wonder what their lives are like if they were real people that spent their day responding “cry harder” to genuine concerns over human rights violations and atrocities. Do their partners and family know about it? Do they have some sort of personal narrative that makes them a hero for being like that? Is that just how they relax and blow off steam after, what I can only assume was a long hard day of strangling hookers and shooting puppies?
“I wish I could play Wolfenstein in real life.”
https://www.mic.com/articles/185045/wolfenstein-ii-nazi-kill...
You basically have to be a party loyalist to get campaign funds so, unless you can self fund, you gotta toe the line.
I agree but the argument I'm making is that the "what they believe in" part is usually, "I should be re-elected". There are very few elected officials that I believe would choose to not be re-elected rather than change their touted core beliefs.
The others may not be much better, but aren’t quite as unmistakably clear.
But the point we've arrived at, with so many of them complicit in these wanton attacks on our freedoms and our society, it's hard to see that there are any sort of ideals or values behind their party. People are going about their days, getting accosted by unaccountable masked gangs, having their face scanned, then getting sent to a concentration camp when some buggy app claims they aren't a citizen? How can one possibly look at that and think anything but "this could easily happen to me or my family" ?
The only answer I've been able to come up with is that it is straight up racism. They believe they could never possibly be on the pointy end of this fascist dystopia, because they look "American" (ie white), and so would never possibly be scanned in the first place? I earnestly hate this "racism everywhere" chant the Democratic party has fallen into for the past decade. But I'm having a real hard time finding any other explanation, so I'm reluctantly coming around to that. Someone please convince me I am wrong.
The only explanation for the core MAGA supporters that I can come up with is that it is a sort of loose coalition of people that feel disaffected and judged by society for various reasons and want acceptance - and vengeance. It includes many people that are, e.g. sociopaths and racists, and want someone to tell them that being like that isn't bad, it's actually "protecting American from inferior people" or some such thing.
There is just no way that people don't realize that Trump is a malignant narcissist that lies every time he speaks, and tries to sadistically harm anyone that doesn't support him. The only explanation is that people don't like him despite that, but because of it- him being so awful, and proudly like that with no hint of remorse, absolves them of the lifelong guilt and fear that they might be bad people also, and instead frees them to also be proudly like that themselves.
Recently I've been reading a book about the history of the Jim Crow era in the south, and the extremely widespread brutal terrorism and mass murder, and I can't really reach any other conclusion than that those people just laid low for a while while they regrouped and strategized, but they're just as prevalent, violent, and racist now as they ever were, and they're done hiding. They see the Confederate/Nazi/Fascist dream of a totalitarian white ethnostate in their grasp, and they are ready to make it happen - they aren't ashamed for wanting that, and they aren't afraid anymore.
I get that this is a really dark view of current events, and I really hope it is not true, but at this point, I think it is delusional to pretend that it's anything but the most likely explanation and prepare accordingly.
The point is it is brown people's faces.
They have always been OK with that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Goldman_and_Elian_Gon...
Biden's CBP goons stripped me naked, imprisoned me, ran up an ER bill for which I'm still being chased for by debt collectors, and tranported me by prisoner van all over the state, while they were enforcing Biden's (and now continue with Trump) insane war on drugs. I did not have drugs, I am not involved with drugs.
Of course nothing was found, and the allegation was hearsay by an HSI detective that some unnamed dog alerted to an unnamed officer, neither of which I have any idea what they were even referencing.
The centralized security apparatus in the Department of Homeland Security being leverage here exists entirely as a result of the reaction to 9/11.
But please let's stop framing recent developments as if they are merely continuations of existing trends. The surveillance state and federal "law" enforcement were definitely out of control well before Trump, and both authoritarian parties share responsibility for that. But it hadn't been being used to launch a frontal assault on domestic civil society. Responsibility for that rests solely on Trump (and his enablers/supporters).
100yr ago you could've said the same about the FBI. They're still bad, but they've got better marketing these days. I am not hopeful.
If a candidate makes campaign promises that do not work in the framework of our constitution or civil rights that is the candidates problem to figure out, you don’t get to throw away those things because your side won and they make your job hard, that is not how this is supposed to work.
This is a known tactic of propagandists, implying that you have no right to complain if you didn't complain in the past. Anyone using this method is immediately suspect of not seeking honest discussion. Also, it doesn't work outside of a few social networks, stop trying it everywhere.
ICE using military tactics (be it trenches or masks) is the real problem here. ICE aren't soldiers, they're a part of law enforcement.
Unfortunately in the U.S. today we not only do use troops for law enforcement, but we're using law enforcement as troops. Neither is the correct role for those services.
National guard has duties that go way beyond warfare...
No, I'm not.
Law is supposed to strive for justice, war is as lawless as it can get away with.
Are you sure about that? There's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, starting with the really high false-positive[0][1[[2][3][4][5] rates of facial recognition, especially among people of color.
In fact, as the studies linked below show, people of color are misidentified (i.e., false positive) more than 1/3 of the time. That's not nearly accurate enough to round folks up if 10 of every 30 arrested, detained and potentially deported actually aren't the folks you're looking for.
What could possibly go wrong?
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-facial-rec...
[1] https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/biased-technology-automated-...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/facial-recognition-race-1.54...
[3] https://jusmedia.co.uk/riotandreason/2025/06/02/face-the-bia...
[4] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-eva...
[5] https://civilrights.org/edfund/2024/09/25/advocates-ring-ala...
It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy
as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things
they are doing to people were never meant to be
equally applied.
It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent
to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t
just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or
an unintended side-effect.
It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself
the thing you’re able to deny others, because
you dominate, is the whole point.
For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue—the greatest.
* Via: https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
This is from David Frum, a conservative himself:
> Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
* https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9077312-maybe-you-do-not-ca...
While pithy, public intellectual/academic conservatives like David Frum and Tom Nichols would disagree, and say the rule of law should apply equally to everyone.
Frum (IIRC, though it may have been Applebaum) wrote articles years ago that the direction of the GOP was going was similar to that of Hungary: using public office to enrich family and friends and not prosecute the same when they broke the law. There have been numerous conservatives aghast at what the GOP was becoming / has now become, and were ringing the alarm for years.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/hu...
Just look at the recent brouhaha about Ontario's televsion ad using Reagan's words against tariffs and the reaction it caused.
Also, though, a lot of groups with some degree of leftist rhetoric are substantially right-wing hierarchy-promoting groups (even promoting fascist-style leader-centric structures) that are simply trying to replace one heirarchy with another rather than eliminate hierarchy, a tradition of deceptive rhetorical positioning which has included fascists as far back as the early days of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
There was no "bait and switch." Nothing Trump is doing now should be a surprise to anyone who paid attention to him or the Trumpist movement over the last decade.
>If we give them room to say “this isn’t what wanted” we give them room to say “next time I want something different.”
The problem is, this is exactly what many of them wanted, and now they're just trying to cover their ass because the revolution didn't work out the way they expected.
That's as may be, but if you give these folks the room to act differently next time, at least some of them will. Which might well be enough to turn the tide in the next elections.
As such, writing off everyone who didn't support exactly what you support as a racist, fascistic, bloodthirsty scumbag who should be put down isn't the best strategy.
I'm incensed by what's been going on and I never supported Trump or his (now) hangers on. That said, I'm sure that you and I disagree about a bunch of things. Does that make me an unredeemably evil human being?
In fact, the vast majority of Americans agree about much more than they disagree. Your "othering" of folks is just as bad as those who "other" folks who believe what you do.
No. This isn't a "both sides" argument. Rather it's a "your fellow Americans are humans too and mostly want the same things. Why don't we agree on those things and work to come to amicable resolutions where possible?" kind of argument.
I never did any such thing. I don't believe anyone should be put down for their beliefs, I'm not like them.
A lot of them are racist, fascistic, bloodthirsty scumbags. That isn't even controversial, a lot of them will admit it openly.
>I'm incensed by what's been going on and I never supported Trump or his (now) hangers on. That said, I'm sure that you and I disagree about a bunch of things. Does that make me an unredeemably evil human being?
I never said anyone was an unredeemably evil human being. I just have no interest in their redemption.
>In fact, the vast majority of Americans agree about much more than they disagree. Your "othering" of folks is just as bad as those who "other" folks who believe what you do.
I'm not "othering" anyone, I'm expressing skepticism about the motivations behind the stated regrets of some Trump supporters and the narrative that they "never voted for this."
>Rather it's a "your fellow Americans are humans too and mostly want the same things. Why don't we agree on those things and work to come to amicable resolutions where possible?" kind of argument.
Because many of my fellow Americans want masked, armed troops in the streets kidnapping brown people. They want the government to police "degenerate" art and erase "woke" ideology. They want to send trans kids to mandatory conversion camps. They want to normalize Christian nationalism and fascism. They want to tear down science and medicine and replace it with conspiracy theories and nonsense.
If I'm not talking about you, I'm not talking about you. But I am talking about a lot of people.
If Trump supporters want to reconsider supporting him and his agenda, great. It's a little late, but I guess late is better than never. I'm not stopping them from acting differently, I'm just a guy trying to survive here. No one is stopping them. I don't need to "make room" for them - they're the most politically and culturally powerful demographic in existence. If they want something different next time - assuming there is a next time, they can just vote for it. They believe in the will to power don't they?
But I'm under no obligation to forgive and forget when the brownshirts are in the streets.
It's like I'm 12 years old again hearing all my classmates talk about why having spoons when you need a knife isn't "actually" irony.
Source: me, the person who wrote it.
Boris Bidjan Saberi also has hoodies with face coverings
It’s not an “ok for me if it’s ok for you” situation.
Otherwise there is no difference between a kidnapper and ICE agent.
However, they've not gone down this path because they are (rightfully) concerned that there would be an instantaneous and severe backlash that could lead to those cameras being banned entirely, which would cripple traffic control.
And you do have the right to contest the ticket in court, before a judge.
Unless you have the free time, and some evidence that doesn't involve the fringe around the courtroom's flag, you're probably better off just paying the ticket.
You do not in other states, like Virginia, which has signs informing you that they have planes that issue tickets (???)
Instead, the situation we have now is that many bureaucracies deliberately avoid making any citizenship or legal residency distinction on official documents because the polticians who determine the rules for those bureaucracies think immigration enforcement is immoral and want to make it easier for illegal immigrants to access American bureaucracies and harder for other bureaucracies controlled by less immigration-friendly polticians to detect illegal immigrants.
REAL ID or certain alternative federal ID is required to enter federal buildings and domestic flights. The only immigrants who are issued federal ID that is usable in place of real ID are permanent residents. Ergo, your plan would have states effectively ban legally-present non-citizens who are not permanent residents from federal buildings and domestic flights. This is a bad idea; and, absent a specific federal mandate, probably unconstitutional for states to do.
States could, as some do, issue restricted term REAL IDs to aliens who are not permanent residents, but REAL ID isn’t intended as proof-of-status but an identity document, so while that's doable, it doesn't seem to be particularly necessary.
(Yes, foreign passports are also permissible “federal ID” in place of REAL ID, but there are legally present aliens who may not have passports—particularly refugees—and who are also not issued federal ID by the US government because, except for permanent resident aliens, the US has generally declined to have national ID and given ID functions to the state; REAL ID nationalized standards for some uses instead of nationalizing the ID itself.)
As for the rest of your post, I don't really know what you're babbling about has to do with what I wrote.
We really should have one, federally issued ID system, that works uniformally everywhere in the country for demonstrating citizenship and legal permanent residency, and that no other category of person can be able to legitimately obtain.
Pastor Niemöller
I can't help but assume this is already being used at retail establishments, but now it could be tied into law enforcement databases, and .. communicate..
> What we have aren't unified social credit systems…yet. They're fragmented behavioral scoring networks that don't directly communicate. Your Uber rating doesn't affect your mortgage rate, and your LinkedIn engagement doesn't determine your insurance premiums. But the infrastructure is being built to connect these systems. We're building the technical and cultural foundations that could eventually create comprehensive social credit systems. The question isn't whether we have Chinese-style social credit now (because we don't). The question is whether we're building toward it without acknowledging what we're creating.
That was the carrot. This new development is the stick.
Can you go into any detail on what technologies you used? Is there enough differentiating data in their attire to actually match agents? None of them are showing their faces so I wonder how many false positives would occur
I'm using a YOLO-WORLD-XL object detection model. Lets me detect objects using text. This is the initial filter that scans for agents - once those are detected and outlined with bounding boxes the entire image and each cropped bounding box are then sent to chatgpt to confirm if the image looks legit. Once image passes those checks - I create image embeddings of each agent using CLIP and those are stored in a vector DB, and each agent is then compared to the DB and matched.
The matching system isn't perfect - but I think good enough to get the point across and can be easily tuned with more data! Happy to take suggestions here - I just spun this up over the weekend
EDIT: Legally, you have no right to privacy in public, if your photo is captured in public (US centric), broadly speaking. You have the right to record law enforcement officers exercising their official duties in public.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-fil...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/federal-judge-upholds-...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/fourth-circuit-individ...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/victory-another-court-...